Standing Committee B

[Mr. Win Griffiths in the Chair]

Waste and Emissions Trading Bill [Lords]

Win Griffiths: Before we resume our debate, I shall give the Minister the opportunity to clarify one or two issues that he wants to bring to the Committee's attention.

Michael Meacher: I am very grateful, Mr. Griffiths.
 At our sitting on Thursday 10 April, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) asked a number of questions about trends in the nature of biodegradable waste and in the profile of waste from the average household. I have responded in writing to nearly all the issues raised, and I hope that hon. Members will receive those responses today. I am sorry that that will not be in time for this morning's sitting, and for that reason I shall state some of our main conclusions. 
 Unfortunately, we do not have any information about trends in the nature of biodegradable waste. However, analysis of waste composition based on work done in the mid–1990s gives information about the proportion of the municipal waste stream that is biodegradable and about the main waste streams that make up that element. According to those data, around 63 per cent.—nearly two thirds—of municipal waste is biodegradable. That is the figure that will be used by the Secretary of State when setting targets for England, Scotland and Wales for the landfill allowance scheme. 
 Around 51 per cent.—that is just over half—of biodegradable municipal waste is made up of paper and card, and a further 33 per cent.—a third—is made up of putrescible waste such as green waste and food waste. The remaining 16 per cent. is made up of textiles, fines and miscellaneous combustible materials. Further analysis of the composition of municipal waste was also undertaken as part of the recent strategy unit report; that suggested a higher percentage of biodegradable garden and kitchen waste and a lower percentage of biodegradable materials such as paper. 
 Unfortunately, due to the limited amount of data available, I am unable to give hon. Members further trends in the nature of biodegradable waste. However, the Environment Agency will be doing a further survey of the composition of municipal waste over a period of time. 
 The hon. Gentleman also asked about the profile of the average householder's waste. Household waste makes up 90 per cent. of municipal waste. The largest component of that is paper and card—again, that is about a third—and putrescible waste, which is just over a fifth. The other main contributors, in order, are glass, miscellaneous combustible waste, fines, ferrous 
 metal and dense plastics. Hon. Members can see that the streams that make the largest contribution to household municipal waste arisings are biodegradable; and they will therefore come into the remit of the targets set out under the Bill. 
 It is also clear that household waste arisings are increasing. That is a matter of considerable concern. From the municipal waste survey we know that average annual growth between 1995–96 and 2000–01 is 3.3 per cent. per annum for municipal waste as a whole and 2.7 per cent. per annum for household waste. Part of the increase in waste arisings can be explained by the increasing number of households. Growth in households has outstripped population growth for many years. When that is taken into account, the average annual growth in waste per household is 1.8 per cent. per annum. That is significantly less, but it is a constant increase. 
 Other reasons for the increases include economic trends, higher living standards and changes in consumer behaviour. Factors such as the collection infrastructure may also have an effect. For example, the introduction of wheeled bins—wheelie bins as we call them in Oldham—may result in more household waste being collected and entering the waste stream. 
 Those are the most accurate data that we have on trends and I hope that that information has gone some way to answer the hon. Gentleman's queries. More research is planned, and that will help us to understand what further steps need to be taken to tackle the increase in waste arisings.

John Hayes: On a point of order, Mr. Griffiths. I am grateful to the Minister. It is useful for the Committee that he has brought back that information in that way. I shall not comment at length—

Win Griffiths: It would be out of order anyway.

John Hayes: However, it is important to say that it represents both good news and bad news, as the Minister implied—good news in terms of the capacity for recycling, reuse and so on, bad news in terms of the growth of the problem. Perhaps we shall explore both at greater length.Clause 22 ''Landfill''

Clause 22 - ''Landfill''

Amendment proposed [10 April]: No. 84, in 
clause 22, page 15, line 8, after 'land', insert 
 'both solid rock and sedimentary deposits, including soil'.—[Norman Baker.]
 Amendment again proposed.

Win Griffiths: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following amendments:
 No. 85, in 
clause 22, page 15, line 15, at end insert 
 ', provided that this waste is not subsequently sent to landfill at that same site.'.
 No. 15, in 
clause 22, page 15, line 19, leave out 'three years' and insert 'one year'.
 No. 86, in 
clause 22, page 15, line 20, leave out 'one year' and insert 'three months'.
 No. 87, in 
clause 22, page 15, line 21, after 'deposit', insert 'and/or storage'.

Norman Baker: It is very kind of you to call me, Mr. Griffiths. However, Committee members will remember that, with my usual efficiency, I managed to condense what might have been a longer speech into three minutes in order to complete my comments before we finished on 10 April; the Official Report records that when I had finished speaking the Chairman on that occasion wished the Committee happy Easter. I refer the Committee to those comments and look forward to the Minister's response.

Win Griffiths: All right then.

Michael Meacher: I am grateful for the good wishes from the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). I had a happy Easter, and I hope that other hon. Members did as well, but it is a pleasure to be back. While the amendments are simple, they could create considerable complexities in the operation of the allowance scheme. They would certainly place extra burdens on waste disposal authorities and monitoring authorities.
 The definition ''landfill'' in the landfill directive, which is reflected in the Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002, contains certain exclusions. Those exclude the temporary storage of waste if the site is used for storage for less than one year; the unloading of waste in order to permit the waste to be prepared for further transport or recovery, treatment or disposal elsewhere; the storage of waste, prior to recovery or treatment, for a period of less than three years and the storage of waste, prior to disposal, for a period of less than one year. 
 For the purposes of the allowance scheme, amendment No. 85 would amend the exclusion for the temporary storage of waste if the site were used for storage for less than a year. That exclusion would apply only if the waste were not subsequently sent to landfill at the same site. The amendment is unnecessary as that exclusion deals with sites used for temporary storage of waste that are not normally used for that purpose. 
 Amendment No. 15 would reduce to one year the exclusion for a site used for the storage of waste prior to recovery or treatment. The effect of the amendment would be that the storing of waste for a period of more than one year would amount to sending waste to landfill and would count against a waste disposal authority's allowance, even if that waste were destined for subsequent recovery or treatment. 
 Amendment No. 86 would similarly limit the exclusion for the storage of waste prior to disposal to storage to less than three months. 
 As I have repeatedly said, the aim of the landfill allowance scheme is to enable the UK to meet its targets under article 5(2) of the landfill directive. The 
 storage of waste for less than three years prior to treatment or recovery, and for less than a year prior to disposal, does not count towards those targets—that is the position in the article and the Bill. I simply tell the hon. Gentleman that I cannot see the sense in using stricter exclusions in the Bill; it would make the system unacceptably complex. At the very least, it would involve putting in place more complex recording procedures, because weighing at the point of entry to the site would not be adequate. 
 To put this in practical terms, a site that at present stores, say, newspapers collected from households prior to recycling, would, for the purposes of the landfill allowance scheme, be considered a landfill unless recycling took place within one year. If, for any reason, recycling were delayed for more than a year, all newspapers sent to the site would, for the purposes of the scheme, be recorded as having gone to landfill. That would be the case even if they were subsequently recycled and counted against a waste disposal authority's allowances. It would seem odd not to count them as having gone to landfill when considering whether the UK had met its targets under the landfill directive. The thrust of the amendments would make it more difficult for us to meet the directive's requirements, and I am not clear why that would be beneficial. 
 Amendment No. 87 relates to subsection (3), which provides that the fact that a deposit of waste is at the place of production does not prevent that site from being a landfill. The amendment would include storage in the provision, but that is unnecessary, because the word ''deposit'' would, I think, cover disposal or storage. 
 I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman, in all his comments, has firmly committed himself to the waste strategy's overall targets. Many of his proposals have been sensible, and I have given them serious thought. On this occasion, however, they would gratuitously make life more difficult—even for landfill operators committed to the Bill's objective of increasing recycling and recovery. It is not helpful to change the dates in a way that makes meeting that objective less likely. 
 With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue the amendments.

Norman Baker: I am grateful to the Minister for his exposition in response to the amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) and I tabled. I assure him that the intention was not to make it more difficult to meet the targets—far from it. We want industry and waste disposal authorities to meet them. We tabled the amendments because we wanted to ensure that the flexibility that the Minister wants people to have in meeting those targets did not create loopholes through which people could take their waste. The three-year storage arrangement opened up the possibility of people classifying waste as being in storage, even though that may not have been the intention when the waste was first received. The purpose of the amendments was to prevent that loophole from arising.
 We are also concerned about multi-faceted sites—those that are not simply landfill sites or waste transfer stations, but which have multi-faceted functions. Waste could be moved around such sites and reclassified accordingly. The Minister may say that that will not happen, but that is the issue raised by the amendments. 
 Having heard the Minister's response, I am happy not to pursue the amendments. However, I hope that he will take our concerns on board. They may be misplaced, but I hope that he will ensure that they do not become a reality.

Michael Meacher: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's objective. We certainly do not wish flexibilities to develop into loopholes. The exclusions are set down in article 5 of the EU directive, which cannot now be altered unless the European Council decides to do so. I repeat: the Bill fulfils the requirements that that directive places on the UK. The provisions will not have the effects of which the hon. Gentleman spoke, for the reasons that I have given. However, I take his point and assure him that we will keep an eye on the matter and that if there is any evidence of what he mentioned, we will take action.

Norman Baker: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Michael Meacher: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in
clause 22, page 15, line 24, leave out subsection (4).

Win Griffiths: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 88, in 
clause 22, page 15, line 25, after 'biodegradable', insert 
 'as outlined in Regulations relating to concerns associated with animal health'.

Michael Meacher: During the Third Reading of the Bill in another place on 6 March, a definition of composting was added to the clause. We have given due consideration to the matter and have decided to remove that definition from the Bill—hence the amendment.
 I strongly emphasise that the Government take all aspects of biosecurity seriously. We would not introduce any measure that increased either the risks to public or animal health, or the vulnerability of the rural economy—including agriculture—to an outbreak of animal disease. After the searing experiences of both BSE and foot and mouth, that is the unquestioned priority. However, there is no need for a definition of composting in the Bill. Composting is only one of the measures that will be included in strategies for meeting targets for the reduction of biodegradable municipal waste sent to landfill. The list is not exhaustive and other methods of meeting landfill allowances may be included. In using measures to divert waste from landfill, the requirements of all other relevant legislation must be met, which include restrictions on the processing of catering waste. 
 The Bill is not the right vehicle for imposing broader restrictions on composting. The composting time/temperature treatment standard is set out in the 
 EC animal by-products regulation, which will apply from 1 May—in a few days' time. The regulation sets a treatment standard of 70ºC for one hour for animal by-products, but allows member states to introduce national standards for premises where only catering waste will be treated.

Bill Wiggin: I did not hear that.

Michael Meacher: Did I not say 70º? I certainly intended to.
 The consultation that we have recently completed proposes such national standards for the treatment of catering waste. Those standards are in line with an independent risk assessment that has been carried out on behalf of the Government, and fully protect animal health. The standards will be in the Animal By-Products (Identification) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2003, which will come into force in May and will replace the Animal By-Products Order 1999. 
 If we are going to move away from landfill as a method of dealing with waste, which we are, it is important to offer options that move us up the waste hierarchy. Working to the definition that is now laid down not only is almost impossible—some biodegradable materials heated to that level would, I am told, burst into flames—but would, more seriously, render the resulting material useless as compost. Such material would become sludge and would not be effective for composting. It is vital that composting of catering waste is one of the options. Nobody, least of all me, wants the only alternative to be incineration. Amendment No. 88 would amend the definition of ''composting'' in clause 22(4). It seeks to provide for regulations to specify what is meant by ''selected waste'' in that clause. I hope that, for the reasons I have already mentioned, it will be clear that the definition of ''composting''—and therefore this amendment—is unnecessary. 
 I repeat that this Bill is not the right vehicle for the regulation of composting. First, if we were to adopt the definition that was put forward in another place, it would not work in practical terms. Secondly, this Bill is not the right place for a definition of composting, or its regulation. I hope that the Committee will support the Government amendment.

Bill Wiggin: I took what the Minister said very seriously, particularly his comments on animal diseases, and I know that no Government would want to see another outbreak of foot and mouth disease. It is a shame that the inquiries that the Government sponsored did not identify whether the pork pie theory of how the disease was brought into the country was confirmed, and therefore it is very difficult to be able to promise, as the Minister would love to, that this disease will not reoccur. Particularly now, when we are hearing about SARS, we are all very worried, particularly in my constituency, about avian influenza. I know that there is a host of other animal and human diseases that cause a great deal of consternation. We want to do the right thing.
 I hope that the Minister will elaborate a little more on the scientific reasons why their lordships chose 
 98ºC instead of 70ºC. I am sure that there are extremely good reasons why 70ºC was enough for the European Union legislation, but I suspect that the reason that 98ºC is on the face of the Bill is that that is the ultimate temperature which no pathogen can survive. There are certain organisms, which are found in volcanic areas, that can survive at very high temperatures. That may be what their lordships were thinking of when they put 98ºC on the face of the Bill. I also appreciate that the animal by-products rules are coming in, and perhaps they will be sufficient. In my constituency there is a company named Biorganics that composts feathers, and it would very much like a clear definition of what constitutes an animal by-product. I have written to the Minister about that. 
 I know that the Government want to produce a workable Bill and that the clause that we are discussing was agreed in another place, with the express understanding that it would make the Bill safer. I hope that in the Minister's closing comments he will clarify why 70ºC is adequate and 98ºC is too high. If that is the case, I am sure that his good intentions will shine through. I should like him to deal with the logic of why it was put on the face of the Bill, rather than simply tell us that it is enough.

Norman Baker: I listened carefully to the Minister and I have read the relevant sections of their lordships' Hansard on the matter. Their lordships appear to be concerned about the biosecurity threat that they believe would be caused if insufficient heating were required. However, I accept absolutely the Minister's point that to heat to 98º would effectively render useless the material that is heated.
 The House of Lords seems to have decided that if composting could threaten biosecurity, the biosecurity threat should be dealt with irrespective of the consequences for composting. That is a stark choice, and I imagine that all hon. Members would want to find a way around it. We want to ensure that biosecurity dangers are eliminated as far as possible, but the composting industry is an important element of waste strategy and it should be allowed to continue and prosper. On my trips around the country, I have received representations from those involved in composting, who warn that if undue restrictions are placed on composting, such as that which comes from the Lords, it will effectively rule out composting. 
 I cannot counter that argument. On a number of occasions, we have told the Minister and others that we do not want landfill or incineration, and there is a range of alternatives. In all honesty, we should not rule out one of the main alternatives, which is what I think would happen if the Bill included a 98º requirement. Notwithstanding what was said in the House of Lords, including comments from the Liberal Benches, I therefore conclude that it is appropriate to accept the Government amendment and for the reference to 98º to be removed. 
 It is important that the Minister is clear about what will be achieved with the 70º figure. He cannot simply say that it is an EU ruling. We want more justification than that. We are not here simply to act as a cipher for 
 EU directives. We want to know what will be achieved by having a lower temperature, and we want to know the qualification and quantification of the risk involved. What assessment has been made of the biosecurity threat that will remain if the temperature is set at 70º? 
 I am happy to go along with the Minister if he can tell us that the risk will be minimal, but I want to hear it said explicitly before voting on the matter. It is important for the farming community. More generally, it is important for human health—and for the taxpayer, bearing in mind the cost of foot and mouth and BSE in recent years. 
 Lastly, the Minister said three times that the Bill was ''not the right place'' to regulate composting. I disagree profoundly. We are debating the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill, and composting is waste of a sort. I apologise for returning to our debate on Second Reading, but we are not debating the ''EU landfill implementation Bill''. It is a waste Bill, and we should be looking at waste more widely. We are not here simply to implement EU directives. It is impossible to debate the Bill without looking at the implications for composting. It is relevant because the House of Lords has drawn attention to it; it is included because of the knock-on effects. We must look at the waste stream in its totality. I disagree with the Minister's assertion. 
 If the Minister can convince us that 70º will provide the biosecurity protection that we want, I shall be happy to go along with it, but we need to hear it stated more explicitly.

Paddy Tipping: Some of us lead rather sad lives. Like the hon. Gentleman, I have spent many happy hours touring composting plants during the past year—both nationally and internationally. It is clear that a good deal of research and science lies behind composting. We have a false perception of composting; we seem to think that is like the tip at the bottom of the garden. Much work has been done on composting, and I have no doubt that composting could play a major role in reducing the waste stream. It is an effective method of disposal.
 We must analyse the risk, however, and make a judgment on it. My view is that the judgment of risk that led to the insertion of the temperature in the House of Lords was wrong, and that the temperature is far too high. A temperature of 98º would lead to natural combustion. Most important, however, it will kill the micro-organisms that exist in compost and which do the work. To heat it to that temperature would make the resulting compost useless sludge. I am pleased that the Government have proposed an amendment that overrides the view of the Lords. The Minister is right to say that the animal by-products legislation is the way forward. We have to assess the risk, and the correct judgment is being made. 
 My final point is about the role of composting in waste disposal. I am keen that people should home compost. I know that the Minister does it and I guess that other Committee members do. It is sad that the Bill does not recognise the contribution that we make to the environment by home composting—it is concerned solely with local authority achievements—
 and that while local authorities across the country are keen to meet their recycling targets, which I applaud, those targets are driven by green waste composting. It would be sensible, cost-effective and environmentally sensitive for those local authorities to promote home composting and to help people to do it. The Bill gives them no credit for that. I know that the Minister is aware of the issue and I hope that he will reflect on it and, at the very least, praise the local authorities that take a vigorous approach to home composting.

John Hayes: This short debate is important. The Minister's case for counteracting the will of the Lords by removing their addition was founded on two points: first, that the Bill should not deal with composting—I am not sure that that is true—and secondly that, if it did deal with composting, 98º would not be the right temperature for the incineration of compost waste.
 My point about the first of those arguments applies to all our deliberations. The Minister made it clear at the outset that he saw the Bill as legislative cover. There are those in all parts of the Committee who see the Bill as not merely a convenient response to an edict from a foreign land, but an opportunity to do something imaginative and bold. As the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) said, it is difficult to separate the issue of composting from that of waste. Because composting is central to our consideration of waste matters, it is artificial to attempt to do it in the Bill. It would be a missed opportunity if there were no reference to composting, or point of contact with such considerations, in the Bill. 
 I accept entirely the Minister's point that we cannot take a comprehensive view of that detailed subject in the Bill, or in this part of it. However, we should refer to it and make it clear that we understand the point made by the hon. Member for Sherwood; it cannot ultimately be excluded from the proper considerations of how we deal with waste. 
 The second foundation on which the Minister built his case—that 98º is the wrong figure—is difficult to challenge, because that is a scientific matter of some magnitude. However, I would want him to go into more detail in order to persuade the Committee that the scientific case is well made. The Lords' view was probably born of real concerns prompted by disasters in recent years. Who does not share those concerns? It is the micro-organisms that make composting possible, but they may spread fear as well as doing good. Uncertainty about which organisms would survive a 70º burn, and about their effects, for good or ill, surely encourages us to adopt the precautionary principle and to use the highest possible temperature for incineration—hence the Lords amendment. 
 Therefore, I am yet to be persuaded by the Minister's case. I rather share the Lords' view that we must be certain about the message that we send in the Bill and in Committee about the safety of disposal. That is particularly true of animal by-products, which have caused so much concern recently. I am not convinced that composting is not a proper consideration for the Committee or the Bill. Unless the Minister can make his case even more persuasively, 
 drawing on all his powers and eloquence, I am afraid that I shall advise my hon. Friends to support the Lords and reject the amendment.

David Drew: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Griffiths. I apologise for my lateness. I travelled up here this morning.
 I want to raise a simple matter, and this seems the most appropriate point at which to do so. Those involved in certain types of farming rely almost entirely on the waste flow as their way of reinvesting in the whole cycle of agriculture. I have been talking with representatives of the biodynamic part of agriculture, which I tend to do because they are based in my constituency. Largely in response to the animal by-products order from Europe, they have made it clear to me that we will imperil this type of agriculture if we put ever more constraints on the way in which it reinvests waste products from existing stock and crops. 
 I know that some see the biodynamic part of agriculture as a very minor aspect of agricultural production, but it is growing and is of considerable interest. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will say something—he may already have done so in his introduction, which I missed—about the fact that we must be careful not to constrain parts of agriculture.

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is right, which is precisely why the Bill must refer to such issues. I, too, am interested in them. Indeed, a composter in my constituency does much of what the hon. Gentleman described. If we ignore such things in the Bill, we shall send out the wrong signal, just as we shall if we restrict or over-regulate the industry. For the reasons that he gave, we must strike a balance in our approach to waste and composting.

David Drew: I think that we are coming at the answer from the two ends of the spectrum, although I hope that we shall meet in the middle. I simply make the point that the measure inserted by the Lords makes it virtually impossible for people to continue to reinvest natural, organic materials in the process.
 Although I support the Government, they must carefully consider where composting fits in the context of the Bill. In particular, we have to recognise that natural processes must not be ruled out because of the constraints that have been imposed.

Bill Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman has touched on the essence of why we must fully debate these issues. First, we all know that there is a difference between vegetable composting and animal composting. The concern lies with animal material, which, in nature, would be eaten by other animals before being returned to the soil. The Bill says that we are looking
''to maintain selected biodegradable waste at 98 degrees celsius''.
 The concern is that that means meat and food products. It would be detrimental to spread those across fields, because that would allow pathogens to jump up the food chain. If that happened, farmers' livelihoods would be even more at risk than if only safe compost was put on fields.

David Drew: I do not deny what the hon. Gentleman says—it is the very essence of the biodynamic industry's argument. Animal by-products are not necessarily separated from crop by-products because the most important thing is the ability to build continuity into the system. The industry would have serious misgivings because what is proposed would make it virtually impossible for it to carry on doing that.
 I shall not bore hon. Members with my understanding of the biodynamic industry, except to say that we should be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We are trying to encourage more sustainable practices in agriculture, composting and whatever else, but we should not impose constraints that do not have a scientific basis. I agree with the point that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings made about pathogens, but, again, that depends on the nature of the animal. For a clear species—one that has no past record of disease problems—it would be unfair to shut out that production by too much regulation.

Michael Meacher: I shall try to be persuasive, as the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings requested. Some valid points have been made that I shall try to respond to directly.
 The temperature used for sterilisation in the rendering process is 98º. The problem is that that would kill all useful agents as well as harmful pathogens and would render material unfit for use as compost. That is why we do not believe that 98º is right. However, there is the basic question of whether 70º for one hour is adequate. We are all united in wanting both not to take any risks and to ensure that the process destroys any harmful pathogens present. The EU Scientific Veterinary Committee has agreed that heating for one hour at 70º is sufficient to kill dangerous animal pathogens. Such EU Committees are made up of technical experts drawn in from all countries in the EU and are not politically dominated. I think that if that Committee has given its considered and clear view, that is acceptable. If there is any evidence to the contrary, we shall take that seriously.

Gregory Barker: We are of course talking about selected biodegradable waste at 98º, as the Bill makes clear. Can the Minister tell us what quantum of the total amount of waste that is sent to composting every year is, for want of a better word, hazardous? What percentage did the Lords, roughly speaking, have in mind?

Michael Meacher: On the question of hazardous waste, co-disposal is now coming to an end and EU legislation now requires landfill operators to make a choice between running hazardous landfills—[Interruption.] Perhaps I may just finish. Landfill operators can also run non-hazardous landfills. I accept that there are questions to do with the adequacy of capacity for hazardous waste, but I assure hon. Members that we are considering that closely at present. From memory, I think that some 11 landfill operators have opted for the hazardous route. There must be adequate capacity, but we are talking about selected material.

Gregory Barker: I apologise; I think I slightly misled the Minister with my remarks. ''Hazardous'' has technical connotations in the context of waste, but I meant slightly or potentially dangerous materials rather than obviously hazardous, such as compost from animal by-products. What are we talking about in terms of the overall compost heap?

Michael Meacher: The answer is about a third. About 33 per cent. of biodegradable and municipal waste is made up of putrescible waste such as green and food waste, which is a sizeable proportion of the municipal waste stream.
 The hon. Members for Lewes and for South Holland and The Deepings both asked about my comment that the definition and regulation of composting was not appropriate for the Bill. I was not suggesting that it was out of order to talk about composting when discussing a waste Bill. However, compost is not waste but the result of a recovery operation to turn waste into a useful resource. [Interruption.] I do not want to make much of this; I am simply making what I believe is a correct statement. However, I shall turn to the substance, which is far more important. 
 There must be regulation of composting. As I said, the time/temperature treatment standard was set out in the European Union animal by-products regulation, which will apply from Thursday. It allows member states to introduce national standards. We have consulted extensively on them, and the new standards will be contained in animal by-products regulations, which are intended to come into force in about a month's time, replacing the Animal By-Products Order 1999. My point is that although composting is relevant to the Bill, it is not appropriate for its regulation and precise definition to be set out in it. There are other legislative channels for doing that. They are in place, and measures will shortly become operative.

Norman Baker: I agree with the Minister that compost material is not waste but a resource, and I have been making that point about all matters subject to the Bill, which should perhaps be called the resource management Bill rather than the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill. The word ''waste'' is misused generally, not only in relation to compost material.
 My question relates to the previous intervention by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker). In response to an earlier point, the Minister said that the European scientific committee had indicated that a temperature of 70ºC would destroy animal pathogens. He did not say ''all animal pathogens'', so I am keen to know what percentage of such pathogens would survive. [Interruption.] I am sure that that will go on the record in a minute. Furthermore, what quantification of risk will exist?

Michael Meacher: As the hon. Gentleman observed, I have made careful investigation into the matter, and I am assured that a temperature of 70ºC would kill all harmful animal pathogens. The Government have no reason to believe that heating to 70ºC for at least one hour is not adequate for preventing any conceivable
 return of foot and mouth or other animal health diseases.
 I take the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood and for Stroud (Mr. Drew) about the composting industry. It is an important part of the overall network, and I met representatives of it at an annual meeting about six months ago in the midlands. They pressed me strongly, but I probably disappointed them by saying that my overriding priority was to prevent any conceivable chink that could allow a recurrence of foot and mouth. I still think that that is the right position, but, consistent with that, we want to see a flourishing composting industry. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood noted that home composting is an important part of the whole. The problem for local authority targets is being able to include home composters in the target when no verifiable standard is applied to them. I understand that the Environment Agency is examining the problem and seeking a way of accurately measuring home composting. It would be far better if it could be included, as it is a valuable contribution to the overall requirement. It is a matter of finding a way that is reliable and which does not constitute, as the hon. Member for Lewes said, a loophole. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud also stressed that composting and the use of natural processes should not be ruled out. I absolutely agree. That is the best form of recovery. Composting provides for an alternative and useful resource. The use of natural processes obviously represents the best approach. I am very keen to find a way of including home composting within the overall network. I hope that I have answered the points that have been made. I see that the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) is shaking his head. He still wants 98ºC; he prefers sludge.

Bill Wiggin: Can the Minister explain to the Committee how something that has been sterilised at 98ºC can possibly be sludge? It is bound to be dry after heating to that temperature, so it cannot be sludge.

Michael Meacher: I think I had better take advice on that. I certainly have been briefed that the result would be sludge. That does not necessarily mean that it is a wet sludge. Can sludge be dry? I am not sure. The real point is that it is not a material that is fit for composting. The key point about composting and the use of natural processes is that they preserve useful agents. If those have been killed along with the dangerous pathogens, the whole purpose of the exercise is lost. The key question is whether treatment at 70ºC for one hour is adequate. I have no evidence at my disposal to suggest that it is not adequate.

John Hayes: I am not sure that the Minister is on his most convincing form. He has being taking advice on the hoof. There is nothing wrong with that, but it is indicative of a certain lack of certainty. We are not certain about 70ºC or 98ºC. The 98ºC point certainly renders the treated materials harmless, but how useful they would be is a matter of debate. I will not get into
 the fine semantic point about sludge, and whether sludge has to be a liquid or not. [Interruption.] Perhaps we are now getting into that debate, and no doubt Chairman Mao will play a part in it.

Alan Whitehead: I think we have got past that, now that we are on the other side of Easter. I would like to point out that you can superheat water well beyond its boiling point depending on the pressure at which it is heated. Therefore, it is quite possible to have very hot sludge.

John Hayes: I took that as read. The whole of the Committee knew that. We have advanced well beyond that stage, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He brings to these matters a certain insight that others lack.
 The real point is the issue of what has been described by the Lords as ''selected waste''. The point that was made repeatedly in interventions from my hon. Friends was that, as the hon. Member for Stroud rightly observed, this is about the danger of ruining the whole process of composting. We must deal with those items of waste that would cause the gravest concerns and the greatest hazards. If their lordships had said that everything must be burned at the specified temperature, that would be an untenable position, and I would not support it. That position would cause more harm than good. As the wording does state ''selected'', we can make an appropriate judgment that there are materials—again the Minister was shaky on this—that can be taken away from the overall waste that might go for composting and be dealt with in a rigorous way. I say ''shaky'' because, when challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle, he said that about a third of municipal waste was green or foodstuff waste. There is a fundamental difference between those two. Cooked food is extremely dangerous if composted, whereas much green waste is very useful. We need to be more precise about the proportion of the waste stream that is potentially dangerous. That is what concerned the Lords and led to the proposal for a high temperature. We are considering animal by-products and all those things that give rise to concerns and problems. 
 We need to keep composting in the Bill, for the reasons that we have debated at length today. We also need to have the capacity within the Bill to burn at a high temperature those things that would not be useful or the usefulness of which in composting would not be as great as the potential danger that they posed if they were let into the stream in a way that would allow pathogens to escape and cause problems. Because the Minister has not been sufficiently persuasive, we will press the matter in support of the Lords. 
 I am also mindful that the Minister has not chosen to insert 70º in the Bill, but has simply deleted the Lords' proposal. That shows uncertainty.

Bill Wiggin: My hon. Friend has voiced succinctly my fears as well as his own. I am grateful to the Minister for pointing out that we are talking about sterilisation. One would not put into a patient's mouth something that had been sterilised at only 70º. We are talking about killing pathogens in the process, and we are considering landfill, not the manufacture of
 compost. Therefore, it would not be inappropriate to add ash to compost. We are also considering it in relation to storing.
 Clause 22(4) represents a requirement to sterilise biodegradable waste before storing, and that is not necessarily the same as before landfill. We are not talking about the make-up of compost but about what we put into the ground. We have, perhaps, got our wires crossed about what we compost and what we landfill. That is why I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that clause 22 is about landfill: it is wholly appropriate to put animal waste through a sterilisation process before storing it or joining it with other compostable material in landfill. There is no mention at any stage of pressure under which the process will take place, but I am grateful for the educated opinion of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead). 
 We are considering small quantities of specific material, selected carefully. If we were talking about hospital waste—more specifically, for example, dirty bandages that were biodegradable—we would insist on its being sterilised. This part of the clause concerns exactly the same risk to human health, and that is why sterilisation is the only answer. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings: had the Minister specified 70º in the Bill, it would have been difficult for us to differentiate. However, in the circumstances, it is essential that certain material be sterilised before being included in the biodegrading and composting processes.

Michael Meacher: I shall respond briefly. If the hon. Gentleman and his party are determined to vote on the matter, so be it. However, I want to make this clear: sterilisation is mentioned in respect of the rendering process; here, we are talking about composting. The hon. Gentleman said that one would not put into one's mouth something that had been cooked at 70º, but we are not suggesting that people should eat the composting—[Interruption]. I shall come to that point, because I think that the lower temperature is adequate to kill dangerous pathogens. There is no dubiety about it.
 The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings was generous in his comments, but I do not accept his view that I am shaky or uncertain about it. I am not. I am very clear about it. If scientific experts from across the EU are absolutely clear, which they are, that cooking the material at 70º for one hour is adequate to kill all harmful pathogens, I see no reason to doubt them. If a temperature of 98º—which was imported from a completely different context—is going to kill the useful agents as well as the harmful ones, and render material unsuitable for composting, it seems irrational to insist on that temperature. We must take account of that problem.

John Hayes: That would be more convincing if we knew what proportion of compost material fell into the category of products that were likely to be injurious to human health—such as animal by-products. If the Minister had had the courage to put 70º in the Bill, it would have been altogether more
 persuasive. His argument for not doing the latter is that we should not be talking about composting—an argument that I entirely reject. His argument for not explaining the former is covered by his suggestion that 30 per cent. of municipal waste might fall into that category. We need more precision, and more boldness.

Michael Meacher: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, about the division between green waste and food waste, I cannot at this moment provide him with a split of the 33 per cent. However, whether it is half and half or two-thirds and one-third is not the point; the key point is that we are talking about the destruction of damaging pathogens, whatever the percentage between the two.
 The other question is whether 70º should be included in the Bill. I tried earlier to convey to hon. Members that the Bill is not designed to include all the details on the whole of waste strategy. It is perfectly adequate for the matter to be dealt with under other legislation, and it does not have to be replicated in the Bill. We do not need a different definition, or even a repetition of the same definition, in the Bill. I repeat that a temperature of 70º maintained for one hour for animal by-products comes from the EU animal by-products regulation, and that will apply from Thursday of this week. 
 In addition, I said that there have been extensive consultations and that the Animal By-Products (Identification) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2003 will come into force by the end of May. It is not that I am being cowardly in refusing to put it in the Bill; it is in other legislation, and it is entirely appropriate for reference to be made to that legislation in the Bill. We do not have to repeat everything that is included in regulations.

Norman Baker: I understand what the Minister is saying, but he will accept that there is a difference between regulations and primary legislation, especially in the seriousness attached to such proposals—[Interruption.] He does not accept that. I accept it, however, which is why I make the point.
 The question is this. The Minister appears to be putting forward the happy suggestion that a temperature of 70º will destroy all harmful pathogens but not the beneficial nature of the material. Does he mean that a lower temperature will destroy everything harmful but not that which is beneficial?

Michael Meacher: On the hon. Gentleman's first point about regulation, I referred earlier to the EC animal-by products regulation. An EC regulation is an alternative, binding instrument to a directive. The directive has to be transposed, usually over 18 months, with a small margin of discretion on the part of member states. An EC regulation becomes binding and operative in every member state on a particular day—dare I use the word ''fridges''? That was precisely the problem: we had no opportunity to transpose the directive in a way that was consistent with our situation. I also referred to our own animal by-products regulation. Again, I disagree with the hon. Gentleman inasmuch as regulations—secondary
 legislation—are not somehow subordinate or less important legislation. They are binding, but we do not need primary legislation. There is always pressure on the Government timetable, and if we can make something binding without having to introduce primary legislation, it is clearly preferable for the Government to do so. However, there is no lack of legislative force.
 The hon. Gentleman also asked whether it was not a little convenient that a temperature could be found, in this case 70ºC, that means that the useful agents survive but the damaging pathogens do not. I understand his slight touch of cynicism, doubt or disbelief, but I am assured that it can. The important thing is that the damaging pathogens are killed and that other agents can survive. Indeed, many agents in the natural world can survive perfectly well. I happened to read extensively over Easter about hyperthermophiles, which survive in vents at considerable submarine depths at temperatures of 110ºC or 115ºC. So it is perfectly possible for microbes or other bacteria with a useful function to survive at temperatures above 70ºC. I can only assure the hon. Gentleman that that is the advice that I have received from the technical experts, which there is no reason to doubt. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 4.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 22, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23 - ''Scheme year'' and ''target year''

John Hayes: I beg to move amendment No. 67, in
clause 23, page 15, line 37, leave out '2019' and insert '2015'.

Win Griffiths: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
 No. 68, in 
clause 23, page 15, line 38, leave out '2010, 2013' and insert '2009, 2010'.
 No. 69, in 
clause 23, page 15, line 39, leave out '2020' and insert '2016'.
 No. 89, in 
clause 23, page 15, line 40, after 'may', insert 
 ', after a consultation following the guidelines laid out by the Cabinet Office in the code of practice on written consultation of November 2000'.
 No. 90, in 
clause 23, page 15, leave out line 43.
 No. 91, in 
clause 23, page 15, leave out line 44.
 No. 92, in 
clause 23, page 16, leave out line 1.

John Hayes: The amendments return us to the derogations, which we debated earlier, which the Government can take advantage of in meeting the tough targets under the Bill. It is a matter of debate whether we should apply for those derogations, and we held such a debate during the Committee's first sitting. I fully acknowledge what the Minister said about the targets being testing. It may be appropriate again to consider the change of culture that will be required to meet those targets. In some respects, that will be a significant hurdle for local authorities that are not yet up to speed in terms of dealing properly and effectively with waste. I suspect that the Bill, as a legislative instrument, will not simply be a stick for local authorities but will stimulate creative thinking. In the end, it may be quite a positive force and may make authorities think again about how they deal with such matters, about the rules that they draw up and about the culture that they adopt. I am therefore rather optimistic about its repercussions.
 Notwithstanding that optimism, it is important to emphasise that the targets are onerous. There must be absolute clarity about whether we shall be forward thinking and ambitious, and about taking the necessary steps in the time set down for us or apply for extra time. When the Committee first met, the Minister said that we would probably need to apply for more time in the early stages because of where we were starting from. Our 1995 levels—our historical position in this regard—are not as good as they might be; they certainly do not compare favourably with those in the rest of Europe. We landfill more waste than other European countries do. As we heard at the beginning of today's discussions, the problem is exacerbated by the growth in the number of households and in the amount of waste generated. Those are separate issues, but both are relevant to our discussions. The problem, therefore, is not simply that we are starting from a level at which we do not want to start, but that the trend when it comes to changing the culture in the way that I described is not a healthy one. 
 None the less, we need clarity, which is why we are probing the issue of derogations once again. The Committee should be under no illusion that Opposition Members are looking to wreck the Bill or to undermine its intent. I assure hon. Members that the amendments are not designed to do that, even though they might be taken as a political attempt to do so. They are intended to probe the Minister on precisely where he stands as regards the dates and deadlines. He has been frank with us about the targets and about the likelihood of achieving them. As he said, however, we must achieve them; we have no choice about that. The penalties for not meeting them are extremely significant. 
 Our mutual aim is to be rigorous and demanding when it comes to those whose culture needs to change. That is why we need to have clarity, to send the right signals and to be absolutely straight about when and 
 how people must reach the destination that we all want them to reach. That is why we have once again probed the issue of derogations and asked the Minister to be absolutely firm and clear about where he sees us going and about the time scale.

Norman Baker: I think that the motivation of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford and myself in tabling amendments Nos. 90, 91 and 92 is not dissimilar from that of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings. We all seek clarity.
 The Minister said that one reason why he would resist amendments Nos. 84 to 87 was that he had to stick rigidly to EU legislation and the EU directive. That leads me to look with gentle surprise at clause 23, which allows the Secretary of State to change quite a lot of the framework by regulation. It refers to him adding different scheme years, 
''changing the target years or any of them''
 and 
''adding or omitting one or more target years.''
 That gives him a wide degree of flexibility, which appears to be inconsistent—I put it no more strongly than that—with article 5 of the directive. I do not know why the Minister wants that flexibility. If he says, ''Well, that flexibility is there because European legislation may be amended and we want to be able to deal with it without the need for primary legislation,'' that argument is the opposite to the one that he deployed earlier, on amendment No. 84. I suggested that the flexibility that we proposed was necessary, but the Minister said that he would resist the amendment because of the EU directive. The Government cannot on one hand argue that they have to stick to the EU directive when it comes to Opposition amendments and on the other give the Bill the flexibility to change matters when it suits their purposes.

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is a bit of a terrier and he is being unkind to the Minister, who is not so much guilty of inconsistency as uncertainty. The Minister seeks flexibility because he is not absolutely sure that we can achieve what he hopes, because he is not sure of the local authorities. My worry, with which the hon. Gentleman may agree, is that if that is the signal we send out, it may exacerbate the very problem that he fears.

Norman Baker: I agree that we must be careful about the signals we send out and there are one or two unhelpful signals in later amendments. I hope that the Minister does not regard me as a terrier; I usually chase different targets from him.
 The Bill lacks clarity and there are some—doubtless unconscious—double standards being applied on how the directive is implemented. The Minister should respond to that point and specify why there is flexibility in clause 23 that was resisted in respect of Opposition amendments. 
 Amendment No. 89 is out of line with the other amendments in the group, and it relates to a consultation process. Clause 23 states: 
''The Secretary of State may by regulations amend subsection (1)''.
 That could have profound implications for waste disposal and collection authorities and we want an undertaking that it will be subject to proper consultation. I may have missed it, but that commitment to consultation does not appear in the clause, other than in a narrow reference to Scottish Ministers, the National Assembly for Wales and the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland. Many others—local authorities and the industry—are affected, yet it appears from the wording of the clause that they will not be consulted. 
 The matter is given added impetus in the written answer to a parliamentary question. I asked the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 
''whether the length of consultation provided on the consultation documents on partial regulatory impact assessments published on 17 February meets the requirements laid out in the code of practice on written consultation published by the Cabinet Office in November 2000; and if she will make a statement.''
 The Minister replied: 
''No, the deadline we gave for comments on partial regulatory assessments was not in line with the criteria laid out in the Code of Practice on Written Consultation published by the Cabinet Office.''——[Official Report, 11 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 138W.]
 The Minister's Department appears sanguine about bypassing the good practice on consultation set out by the Cabinet Office. I do not know why the Department feels that it can bypass those guidelines. I do not want to be too hard on the Minister—I am happy that his Department is standing up to the Cabinet Office and having some departmental independence rather than being dictated to by No. 10, as is too often the case these days—but as the Cabinet Office is doing something sensible in requiring consultation and the Department is not following it, we need to know why. If it is not following the good practice mentioned in the written answer, we need to be assured that there will be proper consultation if the wide-reaching changes that can be implemented by the clause take place. 
 I want to know why the Minister is not following the Cabinet Office recommendations on consultation as set out in the November 2000 document. What confidence can we have that he will have proper consultation if these changes, which could be far-reaching for waste disposal authorities, are made? Will he therefore accept the logic of amendment No. 89, which would insert the requirement for consultation with affected parties?

Michael Meacher: As the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said, we discussed an amendment introduced by the hon. Member for Leominster that sought to force me to take advantage of the full four-year derogation. We now have three amendments that go a long way towards doing exactly the opposite. I know that these are probing amendments, but that point can be fairly made.
 These amendments would amend the clause so that the definition of scheme and target years would not 
 take advantage of the four-year derogation available to the UK. Amendment No. 67 would mean that scheme years in subsection (1) would run from 17 July in each year from 2004 to 2015. Amendment No. 68 would result in the second target year ending on 16 July 2009. Amendment No. 69 would change the third target year to that ending 16 July 2016. 
 As I explained, I would like the UK not to have to take advantage of the full four-year derogation. That would clearly be preferable. However, it is much too soon to say whether we will have to do so. The hon. Member for Leominster is entirely right: it depends on local authority performance over the next particularly critical three years. I hope that they will meet the targets. I will be down on them like a ton of bricks if they do not, but I cannot guarantee it. 
 To give waste disposal authorities some form of planning certainty, we have set the scheme year period to last until 2020, taking advantage of the full derogation and, in England, we will allocate annual allowances up to and including that year. That will give the clarity and the certainty that the hon. Gentleman seeks. However, we also retain the option to change the target year should circumstances require it, and that may include making greater progress than expected in reducing the amount of biodegradable municipal waste going to landfill. There is certainty, but if we do better, as I hope we will, we have the option to change it. 
Gregory Barker rose—
Mr. Hayes rose—

Michael Meacher: I give way first to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle.

Gregory Barker: Although certainty is desirable for politicians and waste disposal authorities, it is absolutely vital for businesses. What representations has the Minister received from the private sector about the need for business to have absolute certainty in the near term about when the targets will be met? They will have to make investment decisions, and such decisions will be vital to the success of the Minister's plans.

Michael Meacher: I entirely recognise that businesses always want certainty. Governments should always, wherever possible, provide that certainty for long-term investment signals to ensure security in planning. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Bill and the landfill directive are about biodegradable municipal waste. The Bill is not about industrial, commercial or construction and demolition waste, although those are significant parts of the total waste stream. Indeed, biodegradable and municipal waste represents only 6.5 per cent. of the total waste stream in this country, so 93.5 per cent. is not biodegradable and municipal waste. It so happens that the biodegradable and municipal waste stream is the area where we have by far the highest level of landfilling and where the level of recycling up to now has been so low. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that certainty is needed, but he should not forget the scope of the Bill.

Gregory Barker: When I refer to business, I am thinking not about businesses that create waste, but about businesses in the waste sector that want to make investments to develop the markets that this country desperately needs if recycling, minimisation and the waste hierarchy markets are to grow. Those businesses need certainty. What representations about those distant target dates has the Minister had from businesses that want to invest in the waste sector?

Michael Meacher: I apologise; I misunderstood the thrust of the question. I do not know the answer to the question, although I can find out. There would undoubtedly have been the wish for the derogation to apply—at least, I would assume so, although I might stand corrected. I had better return to the question because I do not know what representations have been made by the waste industry and the Environmental Services Association, which I hope to meet shortly. I shall return with a more accurate answer. However, those in the industry know—we have told them—that the Government will exercise the four-year derogation for each of the three target years unless there is evidence that we can do better. That is a fair measure of certainty.
 Under the changes that these amendments would introduce, we would have to plan to take advantage of the derogation for the first target year, but not for the second and the final target year. Although I would not wish to rule out the possibility that we shall make good progress and not need to take advantage of the derogation, given the parlous state of affairs whereby the level of landfilling continues to increase, these amendments presume too early about our progress. That is particularly so as an odd consequence of not taking advantage of the derogation for the second and third target years but of doing so for the first year would be that the second target year, 2009, would fall before the first derogated target year, 2010. That would be a little irrational and I am sure that it was not intended, but that point shows the consequences of trying to adjust or manipulate the target years in the way that these amendments suggest. 
 Amendments Nos. 90 to 92 were tabled by the hon. Member for Lewes, who, terrier-like or otherwise, chided me about the supposed inconsistency that the Government have shown in not accepting flexibility on the earlier clause while proposing that it is needed in this clause. However, the directive allows the flexibility of a four-year derogation. The Opposition amendment that we discussed in clause 22 concerned the definition of landfill. However, the directive does not allow flexibility on that definition, so I am not being inconsistent in saying that we are happy to accept the flexibility that is provided with regard to the target years, but that there is no flexibility in connection with the definition. 
Mr. Hayes rose—

Michael Meacher: I have strayed on without allowing the hon. Gentleman to return to an earlier point.

John Hayes: The only point that I wish to make is that flexibility is important. We all acknowledge that. However, there is a difference between the signal that setting the target at the long end of the game sends out
 and the positive signal that setting the target at the short end of the game sends. We might need to take advantage of the longer period, but does one ask for extra time at the beginning of the match or when one realises what the result might be?

Michael Meacher: Given the waste situation in the UK, I do not think that there is any question of our needing the derogation for the first period; indeed, the amendment accepts that. As I have said, I should like not to have to exercise the derogation for the later period. However, it is much better to leave that option open—and it is left open in the Government's position—rather than to close it but then have to go to the Commission later and say, ''Well, we do need to exercise this derogation after all.''
 Our approach is better. People in the industry have no doubt that the Government will not laxly accept the derogation as inevitable. We have made it clear that that is not our position, but we need hard evidence that we will be able to do better and not use the derogation in the second or third target years before we can say that we will definitely not exercise it.

John Hayes: As the Minister did not like my football metaphor, I will switch to another sport. The Government are setting the bar very low on the grounds that they do not think that we will be able to jump higher. Surely we should set the bar high, see whether we can jump it and lower it if necessary. The Minister's legislative argument is good—the flexibility in the Bill is helpful because it allows for such a rethink—and I can understand why he would not want to amend the legislation. However, local authorities will assume that they have a longer time to meet the targets, which will lead to a laxer approach than if he set the bar higher. I am worried about that signal. Legislatively, the Minister is right, but in terms of how the intent will be perceived, he may be wrong.

Michael Meacher: I am tempted to say that all Oppositions are only too happy for Governments to take on targets that are unlikely to be met and then chastise them for failing to meet them, but I would not attribute such a dishonourable motive to the hon. Gentleman.
 There are pressures on local authorities other than whether the derogation will be exercised in the target years, and the obvious ones are our targets for 2003–04 and 2005–06, which will help us to achieve 25 per cent. national average recycling by 2005–06. Once we have achieved that, the Government intend to go further. We have a modest target for 2010 to 2015, which we can probably exceed if we meet the earlier targets. However, that is the real driver on local authorities, not whether derogation is exercised.

Gregory Barker: Is not the heart of the problem the fact that the Minister admits to having modest targets after 2010? Is that not a huge watering down of the aims of a Government who claimed to be the greenest ever and said that the Minister would ensure that the environment was at the heart of all policies? Is there not a distinct lack of ambition and, having been in office for five years, are they not becoming distinctly jaded on the environment? I do not know the hyperbolic opposite of throwing caution to the wind,
 but the Government appear to be reining in as fast as they can, which is disappointing to those who want to see faster, not slower, progress.

Michael Meacher: I am entitled to say that the targets are modest because we have made considerable strides, but I am still not satisfied. I find it difficult to accept such strictures from a member of a party that had a level of recycling of 2 per cent. when in government in 1992 and that left office in 1997 with a rate of 6 per cent. We have more than doubled the rate since then, and we will more than double it again by 2005–06.
 I talked about modest targets because I believe that, if we achieve 25 per cent. recycling by 2005–06, it will be a modest step to go only to 30 per cent. by 2010. The waste strategy, rather surprisingly in my view, aims for 33 per cent. by 2015, but I am certain that we can go higher. However, those are hugely higher figures than we inherited from the previous Administration, so the hon. Gentleman should not chastise us. I do not want to introduce too partisan an element into what has been a good-natured Committee, but we must be fair.

Gregory Barker: I do not want to start making partisan points, but throughout our proceedings, the Committee has been marked by a forward-looking agenda. We are trying to anticipate changes, so talking about 1992 is about as relevant as my chiding the Minister about the winter of discontent. Those of us who entered the House at the previous general election are concerned about the future. We all see the problems piling up in our constituencies. The Minister told us that progress towards waste minimisation was zero, and that waste was continuing to increase year on year. We must be concerned with those matters and not hark back to what happened 10 years ago. We are addressing the next 10 years, about which the Minister must be more ambitious.

Michael Meacher: I am perfectly prepared to accept that, and I fully recognise that the hon. Gentleman is genuinely concerned about the problem, as we all are. My point was only that it is unfair to say that the Government are unduly modest in setting their objectives or not very successful in achieving them. Achieving a turnaround in the culture of waste management is profoundly difficult, and we have not made as much progress as we would like, but there are signs of significant improvement. In any case, we have probably taken that issue as far as we need to.
 Let me turn to amendments Nos. 90 to 92, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Lewes. There are several reasons why we may need to make changes to scheme years or target years. Not least among those is the fact that it is too early to tell whether we will need to take account of the derogation for every scheme year. However, the amendments would force us to use the derogation every year, which is not desirable. 
 In addition, we need flexibility to take account of the fact that article 5(2) of the landfill directive makes provision for reviewing the final target year. In other words, the Commission, not us, could bring forward that target year, or set it back, and that would require 
 us to add extra scheme years. Clause 23(2) simply provides the flexibility to adapt the structure of the landfill allowance scheme accordingly. We would not want to have to amend the Bill so that we could do that.

Norman Baker: The Minister has raised a point of which I was not aware. He says that the Commission could change the final date. What would be the role of the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament in that process?

Michael Meacher: There is no question of the Commission doing that unilaterally; it would bring a resolution to the Council. The Commission does not operate unilaterally, but if it did as I have described, it would have good reason for doing so, and the Council would probably go along with that. However, the measure could not be imposed. I am simply saying that there is flexibility at the EC end of the system; this is not just about the UK.
 I agree with the hon. Gentleman that amendment No. 89 comes marginally within this group. It would require the Secretary of State to carry out a written public consultation in line with Cabinet Office guidance. However, subsection (3) already provides for consultation with the devolved Administrations where it is proposed to make regulations under subsection (2) to amend target or scheme years. It would then be for each country to take the views of waste disposal authorities and other interested parties in the country as appropriate and in accordance with guidance. The hon. Gentleman made a point of bypassing Cabinet Office guidance and prayed in aid my answer to his parliamentary question, but with regard to the amendment, the situation is as I have described it. 
 I apologise for this slightly long-winded speech. I was perhaps deflected from my remarks by a number of slightly extraneous exchanges. I hope that, following my explanation, hon. Members will not pursue their amendments.

John Hayes: I have some reservations, but I believe this to be a matter of discretion. I agree with the Minister that the targets are tough, and that we must use every resource in meeting them. I am therefore concerned about the signal that we send to local authorities.
 I also accept the Minister's argument that we need to retain flexibility. However, in seeing how things go, we must never give the impression that we are unambitious about what must be done, or underestimate the scale of the change of culture described during the Committee's discussions. I know that the Minister will not give that impression, as he has given us a clear assurance on the matter. 
 I am sure that the Minister has that commitment and determination, and that he shares the concerns expressed by Members on both sides of the Committee, so although I have reservations about sending out the wrong signal, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24 - Other definitions

Sue Doughty: I beg to move amendment No. 93, in
clause 24, page 16, line 11, before 'area', insert 'geographical'.

Win Griffiths: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 94, in 
clause 24, page 16, line 16, before 'area', insert 'geographical'.

Sue Doughty: This debate will enable us to clarify the relationship of the boundaries within the allocating authorities. The amendment suggests the inclusion of the word ''geographical''.
 We also wish to establish whether the Government anticipate any trading of waste emissions across state lines, and what effect that would have. We had a lengthy debate about defining disposal and collection authorities, and the sort of anomalies that occur. For example, in Hampshire, Project Integra involves a mixture of unitary, county and borough authorities. We would therefore like to know whether trading across state lines is expected. If there were no suitable facilities in Berwick, for example, could the authorities look north into Scotland? What would be the effect of that, particularly for the purposes of reporting?

Michael Meacher: I shall try to be equally brief. When I saw the amendments, I was uncertain as to their thrust. They would amend subsections (2) and (4), which define what is meant by an allocating authority or a monitoring authority area, and make each definition refer to a ''geographical area''.
 Clarity in legislation is important. However, I also favour the use of as few words as possible, so long as that does not result in legal uncertainty. I do not believe that adding the word ''geographical'' to the Bill would contribute to its clarity, and I hope that the amendment will not be pressed. 
 The hon. Lady made a point about trading across state borders, and she gave the example of Berwick and the possibility of it dealing with the authority immediately on the other side of the border. That would certainly be permitted, and I do not think the inclusion of the word ''geographical'' is required to achieve that. If that was the purpose of the amendment, I hope that the hon. Lady is now satisfied that it is not necessary.

Sue Doughty: I thank the Minister for his answer. That was the clarification that we sought. We are not hugely exercised about the use of the word ''geographical'', so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25 - Activities to which Chapter 1 does not apply

Sue Doughty: I beg to move amendment No. 95, in
clause 25, page 16, line 26, after the first 'sludges', insert 'and other nonhazardous materials'.
 We have some concerns about definitions. Different parts of the Bill contain overlapping references to the spreading of waste, sludges and other materials. So long as it is properly monitored, spreading is an acceptable way of disposing of biodegradable waste. The Bill is concerned with reducing the amount of biodegradable waste that goes to landfill, so we should ask where else it might go, and one option is to spread it on the land. 
 We tabled the amendment, which relates to non-hazardous materials, because we were confused. The clause refers to 
''sewage sludges . . . sludges resulting from dredging operations . . . or similar matter''.
 All sorts of things are spread on the land from time to time, so we want to establish what similar matter means. Is it inert or biodegradable? What sort of hazard does it represent? We cannot use agricultural land as a dumping ground. 
 Similar questions have arisen in Scotland, where consideration is being given to the matter that is spread on the land, and where there are new rules relating to blood and gut contents, which have to be treated before spreading. There, a spreading operator has to produce evidence of agricultural benefit or ecological improvement before proceeding. How do we avoid material that might be hazardous if not dealt with correctly being included in the category of similar matter, diverted from landfill and spread on agricultural land? What monitoring is there, and how do we define what can be used?

Michael Meacher: Clause 25 sets out the activities to which chapter 1 does not apply—those that are excluded from the scope of the landfill directive by article 3(2) of the directive. The amendment would add ''and other non-hazardous materials'' to the exclusion for the spreading of sludges or similar matter on the soil for the purposes of fertilisation or improvement. The hon. Lady questioned the meaning of ''or similar matter''. The problem with the amendment is that it risks making the exclusion wider than that in the landfill directive.
 We do not need a comprehensive definition of similar matter; the advantage of a general phrase is that it encapsulates materials that are similar but do not have to be pre-defined. If a particular non-hazardous material is deemed similar to a sludge and is spread on the soil for the purposes of fertilisation or improvement, it will be covered by the exclusion. If, however, it is not, it will not be excluded from the provisions of chapter 1—the landfill allowances scheme and the landfill strategies. I do not wish to be drawn into defining what is meant by ''and similar matter'' other than to say that we are talking about matter that is similar to sludges. The key point is how it is treated, and it will be treated in the way that I have indicated. 
 If the Bill excludes something that is within the scope of the directive, there is a risk that the UK will be considered not to be complying with its obligations under the directive. It is therefore important that the exclusions in the clause stick closely to those in the directive, and that is what we have provided for. I 
 hope that my explanation satisfies the hon. Lady and that she will not feel the need to press her amendment.

Sue Doughty: I thank the Minister for his answer. Like all Members, we have been trying to expand the Bill's scope so that it becomes a waste Bill, rather than simply implementing an EU directive. What we do about spreading waste matter on land is quite a broad issue, and the Scots must deal with it separately.
 I am a little concerned when we say that we know what sludge is, because it is clear from the previous debate that that is not entirely true. One can have dry treated sludge, wet sludge, sludge in cakes and sludge that has been baked and rendered inert. Quite honestly, I do not think that we know what sludge is—the Committee is made up of non-technical people who represent their communities. 
 We propose including the words ''non-hazardous materials'' because the clause makes no reference to them and because we are concerned that the Committee does not know what it is dealing with. There was concern earlier about whether animal waste products could be heated up enough during composting. Happily, it turns out that prions are destroyed at a lower temperature than the bacteria that treat compost. We were delighted and most relieved to learn that. 
 I appreciate that the Minister does not have a definition of ''similar matter'' and that we are straying slightly from the point, but I would like to leave him with this thought: we have not fully defined what we are talking about, as it may be sludges or certain animal by-products, and some are hazardous while others are not. 
 The Bill refers to the appropriate treatment of such by-products at different points in their creation, disposal or degeneration, as one might call it in the example of sewage sludge. Sewage sludge is fairly heavily managed in terms of what goes on to be used in spreading and it is subject to strong regulations, but we are very vague about some other materials. If we are not talking about sewage sludge or other materials that are heavily managed, might not the word ''similar'' include something that is not so heavily monitored?

Bill Wiggin: I have one question for the Minister. He uses the word ''non-hazardous'' in every part of clause 25 except paragraph (a), and that is what I suspect concerns the hon. Lady. It is not unreasonable to request that he include that word, and an amendment asking him to do so is in no way wrecking.

Michael Meacher: In response to that point, let me tell hon. Members that subsections (1)(b) and (1)(c) refer to the deposit of non-hazardous dredging sludges, so the qualification applies to sludges. Subsection (1)(a) refers to ''sludges . . . or similar matter''.
 I think that we are making quite a lot out of this. I cannot give a totally adequate ''Encyclopaedia Britannica'' definition of sludges, although I think that we all have a pretty good idea of what is meant. Okay, there may be materials on the margins that cannot be entirely accurately described as sludges, but 
 they are similar. I hope that Members can accept a common-sense attempt not to exclude such materials, which may not precisely be sludges according to whatever official definition is used. That is all we are talking about. I hope that the hon. Lady, having listened to our interesting etymological debate, will not pursue the semantics too much, because it would certainly be beyond my capacity to reply.

Sue Doughty: I thank the Minister for his response. We are exhausting the sum total of our understanding of what ''sludge'' means—it would be safer to press an amendment on that. We have made the point that we have concerns about non-hazardous waste and safety. However, the clause relates to an exclusion from the Bill, not an inclusion, so defining what happens when material is spread on the land is not a task for the Committee. We have made our point well, and I hope that when those issues come before us again we have rather tighter definitions so that we know what is in and what is out. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Bill Wiggin: I wish to make two points. We discussed activities to which chapter 1 does not apply, and we had a debate on sludge. I am concerned that there is a clear separation between the definition of materials that are spread on the land and involved in the biodegradable process, and of separate materials that go to landfill. I want the Minister to bear that in mind in terms of our debate on a previous clause as to how landfill is defined and the temperature at which material needs to be sterilised before it can go to landfill.
 The other issue that I wish to raise is cross-border trading, which was touched on in other definitions. Can the Minister reassure me that it will be possible for all local authorities to trade their allocations across borders without difficulty?

Michael Meacher: On that specific point, cross-border trading would certainly be permitted—that issue arose at an earlier point—but it is expected that such trading would be preceded by an agreement among the relevant countries to ensure proper monitoring. On that basis, it could certainly occur.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26 - Penalties under Chapter 1: General

Norman Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in
clause 26, page 17, line 7, at end insert 
 'for a maximum period of one year'.
 The amendment returns us to a point that was discussed earlier, namely the response of waste disposal authorities to the new regime that will be created for them. It also concerns the response of allocating authorities to situations that may arise. I am very much in favour of subsection (3), which clearly 
 sets out for waste disposal authorities the regime that will be put in place with regard to fines, when penalties will be enforced, the rules for calculating their amounts, provisions as to where payments are made and so on. Waste disposal authorities can be in no doubt as to the consequences if they fail to meet their targets or otherwise behave in a way that would incur penalties. That is admirable. 
 If we are to see the step change that the Government want to happen in terms of waste disposal methods, especially with regard to increased recycling, it is absolutely right to have penalties and to enforce them. So, subsection (3) seems absolutely admirable to me, but we have a rather different scenario in subsection (1). That is where the amendment comes in. In subsection (1), we see that the allocating authority may, notwithstanding the regime clearly set out in subsection (3), 
''extend the time for paying the whole or part of the penalty or any interest on it''.
 We suggest a 12-month limit on that extension. 
 Subsection (1)(c)(ii) even gives the allocating authority the power to 
''relieve the waste disposal authority, in whole or in part, from liability to the penalty or any interest on it.''
 That is a curious arrangement. On the one hand, the clause sets out clear rules with firm penalties, but, on the other, the allocating authority could say, ''If you don't like it, or if it is not working, we shall waive the penalty entirely.'' 
 There are two dangers in taking such an approach. First, subsection (1)(c) sends the message to waste disposal authorities that, notwithstanding the penalty regime, they still have the option to argue with the allocating authority over making representations to the Government—I put it bluntly—that they should be exempted from paying the penalty because of their particular circumstances, that it should be scaled down or that they should at least have more time to pay. 
 That would be a charter for special pleading for waste disposal authorities, and I predict that they will be queuing up at the Minister's door saying that they should not pay the penalty that the rules suggest. That cannot be what the Government want. They cannot want the Minister of the day interfering and negotiating with waste disposal authorities, saying ''If you do this, you will not incur the penalty,'' or, ''If you do that, we can shave the penalty down.'' That would give undue power to the Secretary of State. 
 It would be much better to have the regime suggested in subsection (3), which states the arrangements simply. We do not have a criminal justice system that sets maximum penalties and then allows Ministers to decide whether the circumstances of a case permit the penalties to be waived. That would interfere in the judicial process, although it seems that a similar mechanism is countenanced in subsection (1).

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is making a persuasive argument. Once again, it is about clarity. We should not underestimate the nature or importance of the message that comes from our debates: we are making tough demands, so we need to be absolutely
 clear about their repercussions. As with derogations, clarity is critical. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, which is bigger than we first anticipated. It is about the signals that the Committee gives the authorities.

Norman Baker: I am grateful for that intervention, which reinforces what I said. It further reinforces a point that I made on Second Reading, when I painted a scenario in which, notwithstanding the derogations that may come into force, the targets may be missed by some or all waste disposal authorities. Given the step-change that has to be made, that is not inconceivable.
 The authorities would then argue for the penalties to be waived or put off, saying to the Minister, ''If you enforce the penalties under clause 26(3), you will take away money for recycling and further reduce our ability to meet the targets. We are in a downward spiral, and you will make it worse. You will deprive us of the means to do what you want. You must let us off the penalties.'' I can imagine such conversations taking place in three or four years and the authorities queuing up at the Minister's door. 
 Subsection (1)(c) is an admission by the Government that many waste disposal authorities may not meet their targets, that penalties will be incurred and that they may have to be waived. Why else include a provision that could allow the Minister to override subsection (3)? Why else override the rules for calculating the penalty? Why else override the provisions on when penalties are due? Why are those provisions all being negated? 
 The answer is that the Minister wants an escape clause should the whole thing go pear-shaped, but that is not the right message to send to waste disposal authorities. They know that targets have been set but that, if they are not met, the penalties can be watered down. That is not what we should be saying to the authorities. They must be under no illusion: all penalties incurred under the rules must be met. The amendment, which my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford and I have tabled, sets a maximum leeway of 12 months, which is pretty generous. I cannot foresee any circumstances in which there would have to be any extension beyond 12 months. I hope that the Minister takes that point on board. 
 The Minister is sending out the wrong message with subsection (1)(c), which is that the targets and the thrust of the Bill can be fatally undermined. If he concludes that waste disposals authorities do not have the powers, funds, wherewithal or whatever else to meet the targets, the answer to the conundrum is to set up a special fund or to provide extra funding by local authority-Office of the Deputy Prime Minister channelling. The way to help waste disposal authorities that do not meet their targets cannot be to let them off their penalties, which would be fatal.

Michael Meacher: The hon. Gentleman makes a strong case, and I have considerable sympathy with him. However, I say at the outset that there is no question of letting waste disposal authorities off the hook. The wording in subsection (1)(c) is qualified by the premise that ''the allocating authority may'', which does not
 suggest that the authority will do what is described or that if large numbers of authorities queue up at the office, they will all be let off. The question is whether there should be flexibility.
 The amendment would limit the power of the allocating authority to extend time in which to pay the whole or part of a penalty under chapter 1, as well as any interest on it. As the hon. Gentleman said, the amendment would prevent the time for payment from being extended by more than one year. Given the force of his argument, I am surprised that he tabled an amendment to paragraph (c)(i), as opposed to paragraph (c)(ii), for which he seemed to be arguing. 
 The amendment would reduce the flexibility available to the Secretary of State and to other allocating authorities in the case of a waste disposal authority landfilling more than its allocation or breaching other requirements of the landfill allowances scheme.

Sue Doughty: We have one additional consideration. If for whatever reason the Minister suggests that he is not encouraging people to beat a path to his door, we shall continue to have a political situation, which I think the public have by now rumbled, whereby Governments are often more friendly to local authorities that are of the same political persuasion as themselves. There could again be opportunities for people to say, ''Well, we won't go so heavy,'' ''They had an excuse,'' or ''We won't fund this local authority, but we will fund that.'' We have been talking about the amount of money that is given to local authorities to support the change from landfill to other technologies, or about the lack of funding or budgetary constraints, which is a political decision. The amount of money that local authorities have—

Win Griffiths: Order. This is becoming a speech rather than an intervention.

Sue Doughty: I think that the Minister will get the gist of my concerns about political bias, which the amendment would prevent.

Michael Meacher: I understand the hon. Lady's point that a Secretary of State or allocating authority could respond more positively to a waste disposal authority of the same political complexion. However, the amendment allows for discretion in payment to be given up to a year, so judgment could still be exercised in a discriminatory way, although I take the general point.
 I absolutely agree that if there are to be financial penalties—and there are—they need to be a strong deterrent. That is their purpose, and we should not send out the signal that the penalties are voluntary or discretionary and that with a nod and a wink payment can be deferred almost indefinitely. We do not want to generate that situation. 
 The Secretary of State might extend the time available for a penalty to be paid if, for example, the ability to pay over several years would enable a waste disposal authority to continue investment in alternatives to landfill. The hon. Member for Lewes, in moving the amendment, anticipated that by saying that all sorts of excuses about good and worthy 
 purposes would be used in order to benefit from that discretion. I have some sympathy with his point, and I am prepared to look at the matter again. I am not prepared to say that we should limit the discretion to a period of one year, nor would I want to give the impression that the financial penalty could be easily manipulated, particularly by a sympathetic Secretary of State; that is not the intention of the Bill. I am prepared, without prejudice, to reconsider the matter.

John Hayes: I am grateful to the Minister. He probably gathered from my intervention that I am sympathetic to the case made by the hon. Member for Lewes. We should consider both the signal that we send to local authorities at the outset and the inconsistencies that might arise if the Secretary of State had to deal with competing claims. That would undermine people's confidence in the legislation, because they would inevitably feel that they had to compete for special treatment.

Michael Meacher: I understand that point as well. We are discussing subsection (1)(c), which allows for the penalty to be relieved. It might be used on occasions on which there were specific reasons for a penalty not to be imposed. For example, if there had been a fire in a recycling facility, it would be right for the time for repayment to be flexible. However, a good point has been made and I would like to think about it. Penalties are automatic: as soon as a waste disposal authority exceeds the allowances in a year, it is automatically liable to penalty. We are discussing the speed at which it should be allowed to pay. Unfortunately, the reasons why a breach of the landfill allowance scheme has occurred are heterogeneous—external natural disasters might have affected the situation—so we need to provide reasonable flexibility without sending out the wrong message. There should not be a restriction of one year, and I shall reconsider whether there should be a limit. I hope that, on that basis, the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied.

Norman Baker: I am not sure that I am satisfied, but I listened carefully to the Minister and am grateful for his positive recognition that there is a genuine problem. If it is to be good, legislation has to be both clear and fair. The arrangements in clause 26 are not clear; they are unfair and potentially partisan. That cannot be the Government's intention, but the Minister recognises that it could happen. I shall not press the amendment to a Division because he said that he would reconsider the point. I believe him, and I hope that he will table an amendment on Report. If the legislation is left unamended, it will present more problems than it solves—by a long way. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Gregory Barker: I beg to move amendment No. 96, in
clause 26, page 17, line 25, at end insert, 
 'A Waste collection authority in England which is not also a waste disposal authority may direct that the waste disposal authority to whom it delivers its waste shall not dispose of that waste by incineration. Failure on behalf of the waste disposal authority to comply will result in a penalty as set down in Clause 9'.

Win Griffiths: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 45—Directions to waste disposal authorities—
'(1) A waste collection authority in England which is not also a waste disposal authority may direct that the waste disposal authority to whom it delivers its waste shall not dispose of that waste by incineration. 
 (2) Any waste disposal authority which receives such a direction shall take such steps as are necessary to ensure it is complied with within 12 months of the issuing of the direction. 
 (3) A waste collection authority issuing a direction under subsection (1) above shall pay to a waste disposal authority such amounts as are needed to ensure that the disposal authority is not financially worse off as a result of having to comply with the direction.'.

Gregory Barker: The amendment and the new clause are similar. The new clause puts a little more flesh on the bones suggested in the amendment. The amendment would give waste collection authorities the power to block the incineration of waste by waste disposal authorities, by introducing some accountability.
 In essence, contradictions, complexities and conflict frequently arise if two authorities in the same area have differing views on the best way to dispose of waste. I am familiar with the problem, as is the hon. Member for Lewes, because it confronts us daily in East Sussex. It has to be said that there is nothing like the threat of a local incinerator to enthuse a local community into taking action to promote reuse and minimisation, and especially recycling. 
 When I address village meetings in my area dealing specifically with the threat of an incinerator, the argument is always about what should be done to minimise waste and to promote recycling. It is not enough to shift or displace the burden by disposing of the waste elsewhere. It is my experience that, by and large, once people become engaged in the waste argument, they want to be responsible and take a holistic approach, to be more ambitious and not take a narrow, not-in-my-back-yard attitude. 
 It is therefore particularly galling, if one is engaged in the waste process and if the district council is responding actively to the concerns of its residents by promoting recycling and waste minimisation, to find that it makes no difference because the waste disposal authority will be ploughing ahead, often with long-term contracts, to burn the waste in an incinerator. Because of the nature of long-term contracts, the best efforts of local residents and their elected representatives are often in vain. 
 In my area, Wealden district council follows best practice in recycling; and my own council, Rother district council, is not bad but has ambitions to do a lot better. Our problem is that a great deal of the waste generated in the city of Brighton and Hove is being directed for disposal out of the urban area and into rural areas, especially to my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Lewes. That is a particular cause for concern, because the operator may need to take waste from other areas to make the incinerators viable in the long term. That would be another disincentive to better waste management. 
 It is extremely important that mechanisms are available to allow local communities' democratically accountable representatives to have a say in disposal. The Minister may say that the county council is equally democratically accountable, but it is accountable over a much wider area. Disposal and collection are carried out by different civic authorities and are treated differently. We must therefore regulate the relationship between those authorities far more efficiently than we have done to date. The amendment and the new clause try to address such complexities and to enable communities to stand up and say, ''We will not allow our waste to be incinerated.'' 
 The new clause would inject some realism in that respect. It would not be enough for collection authorities to wash their hands of waste while denying the county council—the disposal authority—the full means of dealing with it. By and large, county councils do not want to incinerate if there are other options. Some councils may be neutral about those, while others may be slightly more enthusiastic, but by and large there is no great enthusiasm for incineration, certainly among my Conservative colleagues in local government. None the less, councils have been led to decide that incineration is the best option for them. Under new clause 45, where there is a financial incentive to incinerate, the waste collection authority must reimburse the disposal authority for the costs of not incinerating, or at least take a share of the financial burden. That must be fair. 
 I would like the Minister carefully to examine the new clause and the amendment. I want him to accept that there are inherent problems in the dynamics between collection and disposal authorities, which existing legislation does not address. I also want him to accept that, sadly, we do not have the all-embracing, holistic waste Bill for which many Opposition Members had hoped. Such a Bill could have taken an ambitious, all-embracing approach and been a standard bearer for a 21st-century waste policy. In the absence of such a Bill, and with no prospect of a Bill to address all the contradictions and complexities, I ask him to consider incorporating the amendment and the new clause in this Bill. 
 We must all address these problems, which cannot be put off. Big contracts, with a life of 20 years, are being signed throughout the country almost every week. We must send the clear signal to those who want to recycle rather than to incinerate that we shall empower them to take control of the process and that we shall give them the tools to do the job.

Norman Baker: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Gentleman. He speaks about my part of the world, so his comments are of particular interest to me. He has also tabled an amendment that touches on important matters and makes a lot of sense. I hope that the Minister will give it due consideration.
 We are considering the relationship between waste collection and waste disposal authorities. It is terribly important in terms of making the Bill work and in 
 terms of the waste stream in general, although the Minister keeps telling us that the Bill's function is not to examine the waste stream. Irrespective of which party is in power, waste collection authorities tend to be greener, more creative and more responsive to the environmental challenge than waste disposal authorities, probably because disposal authorities, by their nature, are told to dispose of waste, while collection authorities see the material collected at source and are better placed to assess what is collected, where it can go, what the problems are on the ground—be that in the streets or, in the case of fly-tipping, in the countryside. They are also better placed to come up with creative solutions. It is absolutely right that their role in the waste stream should not be diminished, or indeed extinguished, in policy terms, by disposal authorities or the Bill. 
 By and large, waste disposal authorities are against incineration. Again, that is true irrespective of which party is in power. That appears to be the case throughout East Sussex, and it might be the case more widely. It is a bit rough on collection authorities that have developed environmentally friendly methods of waste collection and contributed to recycling or composting schemes to be told by the waste disposal authority that the waste produced will then be taken to an incinerator to be burned and, if we are lucky, converted into energy. The Bill gives those powers to the waste disposal authorities. 
 There is a potential in the Bill to undermine the creativity and environmental credentials of waste collection authorities. That it is not what the Government want to achieve, and I am not accusing them of trying to do that. Waste collection authorities may simply gather up what is collected and waste disposal authorities may then have a greater say than they have hitherto had. That would be unfortunate. 
 Any measure that aims to restore that balance and give waste collection authorities the power to behave in an environmentally sustainable way and not have that green light extinguished by the waste disposal authorities is something that we must encourage. 
 Encouraging waste collection authorities empowers local people in a way that giving power to waste disposal authorities does not. Of course the waste disposal authorities are elected, but over a wider area, as the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle has said. The challenge of minimising waste is best dealt with not over a huge area by waste disposal authorities but by individuals in streets, in local communities, finding solutions to their own waste streams in their own locales. I could recount at length some of the unique and innovative ways in which waste has been dealt with in my constituency by groups of individuals, the voluntary sector, district councils and waste collection authorities. Lewes is now rolling out doorstep recycling. I am concerned that innovation is not recognised more widely and could be compromised by the powers given to waste disposal authorities in the Bill. 
 Then there is the proximity principle, which the Minister continually recognises. The principle is that waste should be dealt with as close as possible to the point of its production, first because it minimises 
 transport movements and environmental consequences, but also because it brings home to individuals and communities the consequences of their behaviour, which creates the waste in the first place. The move to allow transportation of waste over some distance to be incinerated undermines the proximity principle and the connection of individuals with the waste that they create. 
 We see a similar undermining elsewhere. People used to know about animals and knew when they bought meat where it came from on the animal. Now, too many people are buying meat on a plastic tray, wrapped in cellophane from a supermarket, and have no idea even what animal it comes from. The link has been broken, and we are in danger of making a similar mistake with the waste stream if we are not careful. 
 We cannot allow the situation in which waste disposal authorities are, frankly, not very good or very creative, when waste collection authorities are. Nor can we have a situation in which waste collection authorities are undermined by heavy-handed waste disposal authorities. In East Sussex, we have a number of waste collection authorities that are quite innovative. Wealden is Conservative-controlled, but I am happy to say that it is innovative on recycling, as is my authority in Lewes. I am sorry to say that the 
 county council, which is Conservative-controlled, is not innovative as a waste disposal authority. That is not a party point, because I have respect for the lead member of the council, Tony Reid. However, institutionally, the transport and environment department of the county council is weak. It suffers from weak leadership, and that is part of the problem. We are now going to entrust a waste stream in East Sussex to a weak department, where hitherto responsibility was spread out across East Sussex and across waste collection authorities in a way that at least meant that there were compensatory factors that made up for that weak waste disposal authority. 
 The concepts that are set out in the amendment and the new clause have considerable merit. They have merit in redressing the balance between waste collection authorities and waste disposal authorities, and in preventing a headlong rush to incineration, which many of us fear. I hope that the Minister will look at those matters sympathetically. 
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.